Smj Review Process

---
name: smj-review-process
description: Use when interpreting the Strategic Management Journal (SMJ) review process and a decision letter, and planning the revision strategy. Explains the process and triages the decision; the actual response letter is drafted in smj-rebuttal.
---

# Understanding the Review Process (smj-review-process)

## When to trigger

- You want to understand what happens after submission and roughly how long it takes
- A decision letter arrived and you need to read it correctly before responding
- You must decide whether and how to revise, and how to manage the action editor relationship
- You are unsure how to weigh conflicting reviewer comments

## How SMJ review works (durable norms)

- Submissions go through Wiley's workflow (legacy tracking at **ScholarOne Manuscript Central, mc.manuscriptcentral.com/smj**). One of SMJ's four **Co-Editors** (verify the current roster on the SMS masthead — as of 2026 it includes Mary Benner (Minnesota), Sendil Ethiraj (Toronto), and Vibha Gaba (INSEAD)) screens the paper and assigns an **action editor (Associate Editor)** who handles it. SMJ has Co-Editors rather than a single Editor-in-Chief.
- Many submissions are **desk-rejected** for fit or readiness before review. Those that pass go to (typically) two or more reviewers from the Editorial Review Board and the field.
- The action editor writes a decision letter that **synthesizes** the reviews and signals priorities; expect **multiple rounds** — a first decision is rarely an outright accept, and **Major Revision** is a normal, encouraging outcome.
- SMJ is **highly selective**: third-party metric aggregators report an acceptance rate around **7%** and a median time to first decision on the order of **~54 days** (indicative — UNVERIFIED against the official site). Track your paper's status in the submission system rather than guessing.
- Reviewers and the action editor push hardest on two axes: a clear **contribution to strategy theory** and credible **identification/endogeneity**. A paper can be empirically clean yet rejected for a thin strategy contribution, and vice versa.

## Reading a decision letter

| Decision                | What it usually means                                            |
|-------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Desk reject (no review) | Fit/scope or readiness — often a non-strategy question (better at SEJ/GSJ/AMJ/ASQ), missing dual abstracts, or no credible identification |
| Reject (after review)   | Scope/contribution or identification judged not fixable here     |
| Reject & resubmit       | Door not fully closed, but treat as a near-new submission        |
| Major Revision          | Genuine interest; substantial work expected over 1+ rounds       |
| Minor Revision          | Largely there; address specific points carefully                 |

- Read the **action editor's letter first** — it tells you which comments are binding and which are optional. The editor's synthesis outranks any single reviewer.
- Classify every comment: (a) must-fix to survive, (b) should-fix, (c) reasonable to push back on with evidence.
- Watch for **the one issue that recurs across reviewers** (often endogeneity or contribution); that is the gating concern.

## Planning the revision

1. Map all comments into a table: comment → reviewer → category → planned action.
2. Sequence the **gating concern first** (usually identification or contribution); a revision that nails secondary points but dodges the gating concern fails.
3. Decide where you will **push back** — politely, with evidence — versus comply. Disagreeing is acceptable if justified; ignoring is not.
4. Estimate scope honestly: new analyses, new data, reframing. If the work cannot be done in the round, consider whether the paper fits SMJ.
5. Keep the action editor's priorities central; align the response plan to the letter's emphasis.

## Checklist

- [ ] You read the action editor's letter before the individual reviews
- [ ] Every comment is logged and categorized (must / should / push-back)
- [ ] The gating concern (identification or contribution) is identified and prioritized
- [ ] Conflicts between reviewers are noted, with a plan to reconcile or escalate to the editor
- [ ] The revision scope is realistic for one round
- [ ] You have decided which points you will respectfully contest, with evidence

## Anti-patterns

- Treating all reviewers as equal and ignoring the action editor's synthesis
- Polishing easy comments while dodging the gating endogeneity/contribution concern
- Reading "Major Revision" as rejection and giving up — it is an invitation
- Arguing with a reviewer without evidence, or silently ignoring a comment
- Promising more than you can deliver in one round
- Starting the rebuttal letter before mapping and prioritizing the comments

## Output format

```
【Decision】reject | reject-resubmit | major | minor
【Action-editor priorities】[from the letter]
【Gating concern】identification | contribution | other
【Comment map】count by category: must / should / push-back
【Reviewer conflicts】[noted + reconciliation plan]
【Revision feasible this round?】yes / reconsider fit
【Next step】smj-rebuttal
```

## Templates & resources

- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — SMJ Co-Editors, double-blind policy, submission portal, and indicative timeline/acceptance figures